Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Gran Tierra Energy’s Result Conference Call for the Fourth Quarter and Year Ended December 31, 2014. My name is Katina and I’ll be your coordinator for today. [Operator Instructions] I’d like to remind everyone that this conference is being webcast and recorded today, Monday, March 2, 2015 at 10 AM Easter Standard Time. Please be advised that in addition to historical information, certain comments made during this conference call, particularly those anticipating future financial performance, business prospects, and overall operating strategies, constitute forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws and forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements may be identified by words such as anticipate, believe, estimate, expect, intend, predict, and hope, or similar expressions. Such statements, which include estimated or forward-looking production and financial information or results are based on management’s current expectations and number of significant assumptions and are subject to a number of other factors and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. Listeners are urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made by Gran Tierra Energy in its reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including those assumptions and risks set forth in Gran Tierra’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, February 27, 2015. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize or if the underlying assumptions provide incorrect, Gran Tierra Energy’s actual results may vary materially from those expected or projected. Listeners are urged not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements made in today's conference call. Gran Tierra Energy assumes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements, other than as may be required by applicable law or regulation. Today’s conference call also includes the non-GAAP measure, funds flow from operations. The press release disseminated by Gran Tierra Energy this morning includes a reconciliation of this non-GAAP item with the company’s GAAP net income or loss, as well as information about why management believes this measure is useful in evaluating the company’s performance and is available on Gran Tierra Energy’s website, www.grantierra.com. All dollar amounts mentioned in today’s conference call are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated. Finally, this earnings call is the property of Gran Tierra Energy Incorporated. Any copying or rebroadcasting of this call is expressly forbidden without the written consent of Gran Tierra Energy. I will now turn the conference over to Jeffrey Scott, Executive Chairman of Gran Tierra. Mr. Scott, please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Gran Tierra’s fourth quarter and fiscal year-end 2014 results conference call. My name is Jeff Scott. I’m Gran Tierra’s Executive Chairman. And with me today on the phone is Duncan Nightingale, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer; and James Rozon, Chief Financial Officer. As you probably saw last night, we disseminated a press release that include a detail financial information about the quarter and the full year 2014 and in addition, Gran Tierra Energy’s 2014 report on Form 10-K for the three and 12 months ending December 31, 2014 has been filed on EDGAR and is available on our website at www.grantierra.com. So we’re going to do this call a little differently than past. I’m sure there is going to be lots of questions and we’re going to go straight to Q&A. But before that, I just want to say a couple of words here about sort of the company in general and, obviously, there’s been a lot of changes in a short period of time here and with the press release out, I’m sure there will be questions about Peru. And the overwriting strategy right now is given that the world has completely changed in terms of the energy business and where it is and $50 oil is a much different environment than $100 oil, the board thought very, very strongly and felt strongly that we need to take strong steps towards balance sheet preservation, which is job one in this environment. Gran Tierra is blessed with a very healthy balance sheet, and this environment is all about survival and positing further as we grow. So we’ve decided to severely curtail our capital expenses and particularly in projects that don’t have immediate value additions and Peru fell under one of those. So I think we want this to be an interactive session. Questions of the strategic nature, I’ll handle kind of the operational, and others, Duncan will handle, and of course anything financial, James will handle. So we’ll open it up to questions right away.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Nathan Piper representing Royal Bank of Canada. Please proceed.

Good morning, chaps. I wanted to get start off with some specific questions and maybe ask a strategic one towards the end. So, first of all, on Peru, it’s clear that it’s not your cup of tea anymore, but I want to understand is what your – what commitments – the financial commitments off to Peru based on the current acreage that you’ve got in place, i.e. what money are you contracted to spend through the course of 2015, 2 016 and 2017?

Well, I’ll let James go into specifics on that. But what I will tell you is, the Bretaña field is now put on hold and I think it’s officially classified as Development on Hold and thus the write-down. At these oil prices, it’s simply isn’t economic, so we think there is better places to spend our money at this point in time. Having said that, we still have a number of exploration blocks which we think have terrific potential. And having said that is where we don’t believe this is the prudent time to be drilling high-risk exploration wells. So we’re definitely going to be deferring that. So there are commitments on each of the blocks. However, having said that is we have an ability to walk away from those should we so decide at that point in time. And James maybe you can answer the specific commitments.

Actually, I’ll let Duncan answer that.

Hi, good morning, everybody. The commitments on the four exploration blocks, so that will be blocks 107, 123, 129, and 133, tackle somewhere in the order of about $160 million over the next two- to three-year period. But we are making significant advances towards reducing Gran Tierra’s exposure regarding these work commitments by evaluating different opportunities for taking a partner.

Sorry to interrupt one more time, but I think that’s a very good point here is one of our kind of – our new guidelines in this company is to not be drilling high-risk wells 100%. We’ve done that in the past and Moqueta and Costayaco worked well, in other cases, not so well. So we want to farm down where possible and reduce our capital exposure.

And I think I’d like also to add – add to that Jeff that notwithstanding what is in the press release this morning regarding Block 95, the other four blocks that I just mentioned, Gran Tierra still does believe that we have a significant depth for the proved portfolio and there is certainly a high potential for growth in the future from those four exploration blocks.

Forgive me, but weren’t you trying to farm these blocks at $110 a barrel, I mean why do you think it’d be easier to farm them down or other than, as you desire to do so, why do you think it’s easy to farm down these blocks now?

I think, Nathan, it’s all about expectations. When the $110 oil position was in place, obviously, one was looking for significant promotes on wells and work programs. I think with a realignment of expectations in today’s climate and we’re still talking to some of the existing potential [indiscernible] and one of them, we are reasonably well advanced. But obviously, let’s see if we can bring that to conclusion, but we still do see a high potential to capture a partner on those blocks.

Okay. If I could quickly move on to Brazil, it’s not quite the same question, but you’ve built up a big acreage position there, you’ve got [indiscernible] production. I mean, what’s the point in Brazil in your portfolio and are you facing a go or grow decision there?

Well, definitely. I mean that’s an ongoing discussion internally. And as you say, it has been very difficult to grow there. Brazil is very bureaucratic, difficult place to work from above ground issues and we’re evaluating Brazil in real time.

Understood. And my last one, if I may, on, I guess, more strategic position. Two parts, I guess. You’ve got $300 million on your balance sheet and what’s the time scale that you’ve set yourself to utilize that? And maybe to [indiscernible] question, other way around, given Duncan’s promotion to Interim CEO and congratulations for that and Jack, you’re coming back into Executive Chairman. I guess what I’m trying to figure out, are you chaps trying to grow this company? Do you think you’ve got a great positioning here given the strong production in Colombia and its cash position? Or are you trying to make this company as lean possible, in which case, it might attract someone who will give in more value than the market?

Well, the short answer to that is we are trying to make it as lean as possible because that’s the right thing to do. We’re fairly hygienic company and OpEx has been where it has been as a result of $100 oil. So we have an ongoing initiative to drive both of those things down and there will be more news on that coming down. I think it’d be safe to say that we’re probably already fairly attractive because we’re cheap. So we’re in no way trying to make ourselves more attractive. What we’re trying to do is lean the company down to being operated efficiently, leanly, given the $50 oil environment we’re in and then once we’ve got the company sort of on the plane that we wanted to, look for opportunities for growth. And the timeline for the $300 million, I don’t think we have one, other that we intend to be opportunity reactive. And I think the longer the low oil price lasts, the more likely it is that some of the sellers’ expectation, which have been very lofty in years past, might come down a bit and we would then be looking at opportunities to utilize our capital.

I guess, if I may have one last go, and so, obviously, Gran Tierra isn’t a Peruvian business per se at this oil price, but maybe isn’t a Brazilian business either at this oil price. I guess what we’re trying to figure out is what are you going to be, and maybe that’s a hard question to answer right now given the short amount of time you’ve all had your roles, but apart from spending as little money as possible what’s the critical opportunity set that investors and we should focus on through the course of 2015 that you are going to evolve?

Well, we have a tremendous base of production in Colombia and Colombia generates virtually all of our cash and cash flow, and we have a very, very fulsome internal exploration set on our existing blocks within Colombia. So we do see lots of growth opportunities there. Having said that, is $50 oil the time for drilling exploration wells? I don’t personally believe it is. So we see a lot of – or a number of opportunities within Colombia that look fairly attractive and probably will become more so through inorganic opportunities, assets, mergers, what have you to grow our production base from there. So I mean we all know that the company cannot stay static and we have no intention of doing that. Now, when I look at this, hit the world in general and the entire world is on sale. So while we’re Colombia specific right now, I think you’re right to say that, at the moment, Peru is sort of on the back burner and Brazil is an also-ran. But there are other opportunities around the world when the entire world is on sale. Now having said that, we’re not going to rush off to some place and do a deal in some part of the world. But what I’ve challenged the management team is that maybe we’ll take our geographic blinders off here and if we see a really compelling opportunity elsewhere then maybe we have to look at it. Obviously, our focus and our desire is to grow our production base organically and inorganically within Colombia.

Okay, that’s clear. That’s very much and good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Christopher Brown representing Canaccord. Please proceed.

Great. Thank you guys for taking the call. Just a couple of follow-up questions on Nathan’s many questions of your international growth and exploration. I thought I’d just stay with the commodity mix going forward. Gran Tierra used to have a policy of really focusing on the oil development and with the recent success that we’ve seen with Canacol securing some high-priced gas contracts for longer-term, is that now on the table for diversity to look for maybe a commodity mix that weights in some of the high-priced natural gas opportunities that you can find now in South America? And I have one more follow-up question after that.

Well, I guess, if I were to take a stab at that, I would say the short answer is probably, no. Because to do a shift into gas exploration is not just a short-term opportunity, where you’re going to say, okay, let’s go drill for gas right now. Our exploration blocks in Colombia and Peru for that matter are oil exploration blocks. And after being in this business for 32-odd years, I’ve seen a lot of these cycles and so I don’t expect this $50 oil environment reign is going to be forever. One thing I can guess for sure is that whatever guess I had for how long it last, I’ll be wrong. So we want to be positioned to last through it and prosper, no matter how long it lasts, but we’re an oil company. So the commodity mix will remain oil in my view.

Okay, that’s acceptable. I guess given that we are in a $60 environment right now. Going forward, pricing sort of showing some stability at this point. Internationally, I know that you’ve stressed that you are trying to remove the blinders on international investment. Is it fair to say that more developments in exploitation opportunities internationally that kind of available maybe of interest to Gran Tierra that are oil oriented that are not necessarily huge growth, but steady return on your essentially weak junior producers that are operating in various jurisdictions, in fact, that’s sort of the directions you’d go in order to ensure return for shareholders and not risk capital going forward?

Well, that’s certainly one of the directions is what we want to do is invest our capital in stuff that makes money and returns value and builds value over time. So geographically where that happens, I guess, I look at it like a series of concentric rings with Colombia being the bulls-eye and the further away, the more compelling it would have to be. But yes, you’re exactly right, because for that – we think there is some maybe weaker players there that don’t have the capital to do their commitments and have existing production and cash flow with upside and those are the opportunity sets that we are actively and aggressively trying to track down right now.

Excellent. Well thank you for taking my questions. I’ll open up the call to other analysts to ask questions. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Jamie Somerville representing TD Securities. Please proceed.

Good morning, thanks. I realize it’s likely a small deal of negligible value given that you didn’t really outline the terms. But I was just wondering, it is a deal that Putumayo-4 interest that you’ve taken, can you outline any details on how that deal was structured and realizing that it was probably negotiated before there were changes in management, can you also speak to whether it fits within the new strategy that you’ve outlined?

Duncan?

Yeah, sure. Yeah, hi, Jamie. Yeah, Putumayo-4 has been on the go now for quite a number of months. The current status is that we have reached a deal with the previous operator. The application for transparence of operatorship is with the ANH at the moment and we do expect to have that within the next month or two. Essentially, the deal is for a 70% working interest. And as I just mentioned, Gran Tierra having the operatorship, and basically Jamie, that block was evaluated in the context of a new potential play type in the Putumayo, which we believe has significant potential for Gran Tierra going forward, not with just respect to new opportunities, but also on our existing acreage. So we do believe this to be one of the potential growth opportunities for us in our existing core area.

Was there any spending plans for this block in 2015 and if there is any spending plan for 2015 was it included in the budget?

There are no spending plans in 2015 that directly relate to the work program. However, there is a payment required to the previous operator for contribution towards past costs. Most of the expenditures related to any further seismic or drilling programs will be for 2016 onwards. And I would also like to add that the previous operator had acquired a significant amount of seismic data, which is under revaluation at the moment. We’re also looking into permitting and potential drilling locations. So we should be very well positioned to put a drilling program forward in 2016.

Okay. Thanks very much. I think my others question have been answered.

Your next question comes from the line of Ian Macqueen representing Paradigm Capital. Please proceed.

Good morning guys, thanks very much. One question about the reclassification of the Bretaña volumes, so just help me understand if we look at GLJ’s long-term price, a lot of the growth in Bretaña was to occur between 2017 and 2020. So if we look at GLJ pricing for Brent, it’s $87.50 in 2017 and it rises to $100 at 2020. So the definition of contingent resources are that they’re not currently economic. Are you actually saying they are not economic at future prices according to the GLJ forecast or how should I think about that because obviously everybody is struggling at current pricing to make things economic, but what about the future pricing? A – Jeffery Scott: Well, under the GLJ forward strip, the Bretaña project is marginally economic. Our problem is it’s going to take a tremendous amount of capital or would take a tremendous amount of capital and several years to get it into production. So we made the decision that there is better place to spend our money in the current environment for the – basically the same amount of money you could buy existing production reserves, cash flow, et cetera. So it’s a decision based on the judicious use of cash in the present environment. So it’s been back-burnered, the economics are not compelling enough to want to put that amount of capital into it, and, particularly, when first cash flow is several years away.

Right. Okay, that makes sense. It’s very helpful. Then there was a statement I think that you are going to continue on with the long-term test at the Bretaña number 1 well, and I guess that’s off the table then as well, isn’t it? A – Jeffery Scott: Yes, we are not going to do that.

Okay. A – Jeffery Scott: We are going to only spend enough to get the thing into care and maintenance.

Okay, perfect. Thanks so much, guys.

Your next question comes from the line of Dan Grager representing Peters and Company. Please proceed.

Hey, guys, just a quick couple of questions. First question, detailed question, out of your $140 million budget, $45 was allocated to Peru. How much of that have you already spent to February 19 and how much do you think you will spent going forward?

So, in our 10-K that was basically available on the EDGAR website this morning, we’ve discussed that we had spent basically $15 million additional cost associated with the Bretaña well, sorry, the Bretaña Sur well since January 1 and those amount we expect to impair. We also are incurring additional cost associated with long-term test and other platform related issues on the two platforms that we have in Block 95.

Okay. And how much is that amount for additional capital, going forward?

We haven’t really said amount yet.

Okay.

Yeah, I think Dan that’s – since this decision was just recently made, we’re just calculating costs as to – basically to do a full stop and what that costs going forward. So there will be a revision to the budget number if approved, but we just don’t know what is yet.

Okay, thanks. And my second question is kind of on the back of Nathan’s question, but then your current portfolio and let just say Columbia, if you were to increase your capital with, let’s say a $10 increased in Brent pricing, which assets would you spend it on? A – Jeffery Scott: That’s a good question.

Okay, I can just provide a – okay, just go head, Jeff. Sorry.

No, I was just going to say that’s – and I think the play in the Putumayo that Duncan alluded to earlier is one that we’re not ready to talk about yet, but we’re quite excited about. And I think if you’re asking me personally and not being a GNG [ph] guy, I would probably want to see us looking there, Duncan?

No, I was exactly going to say the same words, put the new play types that we have in the Putumayo, we do believe has a significant potential to offer up. So we are quite keen to get off to that as soon as possible. And in addition to, perhaps, the expiration component also throw out there that we may go back and reevaluate some of our appraisal development wells, we did originally have in the 2015 budget a two more development wells on the Costayaco structure, which would have allowed us to bring some new reserves into the lease life and give us also some additional production. So I think if we did see that $10 price increase and some stability associated with it, they would be the two things that would certainly come under some new attention.

Okay. Thank you very much guys. A – Jeffery Scott: Yeah, I would just add to that that I might be arm wrestling with Duncan a little over that one because accelerating reserves from our legacy assets into a lower oil price environment doesn’t make a whole bunch of sense to me. So I don’t know if $10 would do it. If we got some comfort that it is well north of $70 or something then I think he could convince me. We also have that the three new blocks in the northern part of Columbia that are not as far as advanced as this new play in the Putumayo, but we’re also very excited about that as well.

Okay, thank you guys.

Your next question comes from the line of Pedro Medeiros representing Citi Group. Please proceed.

Good morning guys. I have a couple of questions as well. I’ll actually draft all of them and we could go for answers. Well the first one is, if you don’t mind to comment on the current economics of your fields in Columbia given the current oil prices. How would you compare them with the majority of fields in the country? Okay, do you forecast any potential improvements on your operating costs for your fields given the increased focus on it. Second question is has there been any change to transportation costs in Columbia as a result of the lower oil prices and would you expect one, depending on how long the oil prices are going to hover at the current levels? The third question is if you can discuss a bit on the potential that Columbian government would look to change royalties and/or provide some specific changes for companies to invest and expanding production at this moment in time? A – Jeffery Scott: Duncan, you wanted to handle those?

Yeah, sure. As far as our production in the Putumayo is concerned from two main producing assets Costayaco and Moqueta, the economics there are extremely favorable with respect to others producers in the Putumayo. We have extremely low G&A associated with that and the OpEx actually is for a recently mature field like Costayaco where we do have secondary recovery in terms of water injection at the moment. Our OpEx numbers are extremely favorable. With respect to increased OpEx efficiencies going forward there are numerous initiatives underway. We’re certainly looking at co-gen at the moment taking our gas and generating our own electricity which is going to provide significant savings going forward. I’m not sure whether you’re aware but all our Costayaco and Moqueta production uses electrical submersible pumps for the most part. So there is a part of OpEx that is power generation. So we’re going to take the gas, generate our own electricity, which means we won’t have to pay national grid prices. In fact, although it even goes as far as to say, lateral in 2015, 2016 we should be generating electricity excess to our requirements and we do have the facility to put that back into the national grid. So from an OpEx standpoint, we do have a lot of initiatives under way, lot down with pressure and a lot of efficiencies that will be recognized going forward with respect to those two major assets. If I’ve answered your question there with respect to OpEx and moving on to the other – so certainly raised production going on to transportation, we are talking to our transportation providers, certainly the trucking companies and we’ve already been able to establish some reductions, some as high as 15% related to our trucking costs. So for some of our transport volumes, that’s increasing our netbacks by closed to $2 a barrel. So we will be very proactive in going to the trucking companies and negotiating better trucking numbers. In parallel with that, we’ll also go now to all of our – in terms of our contract, procurement strategy we’ve gone out to all our contractors and we are demanding significant reductions from our providers and we’re already seeing significant contributions to that. So there is a lot of positive news to present with respect to OpEx. And I think you’ll see that continue going forward in 2015 as we look for further efficiencies.

And I just like to reinforce that. This has been kind of put a challenge before Duncan and his teams that, we need to drive our operating cost down. You don’t get an environment like this where it become – ships back to the producer’s side of the table, where it vanish. So we’ve gone to, as Duncan said, all of our service suppliers, all of our transportation suppliers, all of these companies and basically said okay, we need reductions across the board. So this is not something that we’re just taking lightly. We intend and we’re in the process of driving down our operating costs in our legacy assets.

And also another, I think, thing to add on to that Jeff would be that when oil is up at $100, $110, it is perhaps a little bit easier to start spending without doing the proper efficiencies and analysis that goes with that. So we are embarking upon a G&A analysis at the moment and I think in the next or in the coming weeks, you will see some significant reductions related to the G&A burden, especially that part that goes into OpEx. So it’s just not capital. It’s not just the transportation. It’s not just the lifting cost, but it’s also the G&A component on that. So we’re attacking it from all angles and I think you’ll see in the coming weeks, a lot more capital efficiency applied to Gran Tierra’s production translating into a lower OpEx.

Okay. Thanks. Just a follow up on…

Sorry, I think your final question was around the Columbian Government and lowering royalties. I think we’ve all heard the same rumors coming out of that area and frankly, I would be – I mean, I don’t pretend for a moment to know what the Columbian Government is thinking, but I think – to assume that they might actually lower royalties when they have a very large fiscal deficit this year is probably a pipe dream. What I think is possibly more likely is maybe some deferrals on capital commitments on a bunch of the existing blocks as there is just frankly, a whole bunch of people there that are going to default if there is not expansion given.

Okay.

I just got back from Columbia this weekend and basically what I can suggest to you is that the regulatory authorities in Columbia are certainly becoming a lot more receptive. There is obviously a time lag. They are debating what to do with respect to easing up on some of the commitments. But what I’m hearing or what I did hear on this most recent trip is that the ANH is certainly being more receptive to company’s commitments or the problems associated with executing some of the commitments and consideration could be given to allowing operators to transfer commitments, not get out of commitments, but transfer commitments from one block to another block, if the deemed prospectivity is better to be – perhaps better in some of their other blocks that the operator may have. So I think we are seeing some price stability albeit slow in coming but we are certainly working with that, evaluating our existing portfolio and where it is prudent to transfer commitments, we will do so.

Perfect, very good. Thanks a lot for answer. Just one or two quick, very objective follows ups to that. On the transportation cost side, would you see a possibility that OTA tariffs come down as well and the last point on the G&A, will you provide an official guidance for 2015 in G&A?

I have an interruption

Hello?

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience. Your conference will resume momentarily. You may proceed.

Hello?

Okay. I think there was two outstanding questions, one related to the OTA pipeline and another one related to G&A. I’ll take the OTA pipeline question. Again, having just come back from Columbia and we are in discussions with the government. There was not commitment, but I just do not see any reduction in the OTA pipeline’s tariff going forward. As you know, there is a unilateral ceasefire in process at the moment and basically that’s translating into a lot more up time with respect to the OTA being available to Gran Tierra which obviously this much preferable to send our barrels through the pipeline than it is through trucking. But we also, I think, have to recognize that the OTA pipeline provides revenue to the Columbian Government through the wholly owned subsidiary Senate which comes under Ecopetrol. So Senate is a revenue-generating business for the Columbian government. So I do not see them rightly going forward given that the deficit the country is operating under at the moment, reducing their traffics. But that’s my opinion based on comments that I’m hearing in country at the moment. As far as the G&A question is concerned, I’ll hand that one over to James.

Thanks, Duncan. So in terms of G&A, we’re not putting out guidance at this point in time, but we plant to – our intention is to put it out fairly soon, once we work through the new budget et cetera.

Okay. Well guys, very good. Thank you so much for the answers, okay.

You’re welcome.

[Operator Instructions] your next question comes from the line of David Dudlyke representing Dundee Capital Markets. Please proceed.

Hey, good morning, you spoke earlier about using your cash flow and cash to perhaps pick up existing reserves production of cash flow and the like, but in terms of self-help can I, Duncan, we spoke recently, but can we talk about your exploration portfolio, as it stands in Colombia and the maturity there. I noted in today’s press release that there is a bunch of 2D being required and then we got permitting layered on top of that but, in terms of drill-ready prospects what does your portfolio look like as we stand and if you are prepared to talk about the risk to exploration upside in relation to the current 2P reserves would help provide some colors to how much you can add of your own organically?

Duncan you want to have…

Well, sorry go ahead.

No, go ahead, Duncan.

Right. Yeah, as far as our exploration portfolio is concerned in Colombia, it is really a very, very rich and a deep portfolio, as Jeff has previously mentioned. Many of the blocks we hold in Colombia as you know are a 100% but as a change in strategy going forward, some of the higher risk prospects of blocks we may decide to embark upon a farm out program or uses it as currency to leverage into other high opportunity blocks. But as far as the actual maturity of the portfolio is concerned and we have great depth of prospects and leads that are currently under valuation. A lot of our exploration acreage is already covered by 3D and as you quite rightly mentioned, in some areas, due to the nature of the contract and the early maturity of the play concept, 2D seismic is been acquired. In fact in some areas, with respect to the new blocks, especially the Sinu San Jacinto blocks, blocks 1 and 3 we’ve just completed 2D seismic programs up there. The quality of the data is excellent and is allowing us to mature our prospects lead to prospect status, in readiness for tooling programs in 2016 and 2017. Likewise with blocks Calca 6 and Calca 7, we’ve completed the gravity magnetic data over both blocks and seismic programs over Calca 7, pending some further acquisition probably in the early part of 2016 on Calca 6. That will complete seismic programs over those blocks And as I’ve mentioned to you already, with respect to the two new blocks we picked up in the Putumayo basin, the recent block that we formed into Putumayo -4. We also picked up another block Putumayo-31 in the 2014 license realms. Both blocks we are fortunate enough that they already contain significant quantities of 2D seismic data. And so again, looking at capital efficiencies going forward, some of these blocks actually lend themselves to slim hole or strat well drilling, which means we can get in there, negate some of the permitting process and accelerate the drilling of some of these wells. But getting back to what, Jeff mentioned earlier on the call, is there will be a time for us to reactivate our exploration programs, but drilling $50, $55 oil is probably not prudent on a risk basis. So we have a very rich exploration program poised and ready to go. Although we’re not engaging in significant seismic acquisition for the remained of this year, based on our current budget or exploration wells based on our current budget, we are ready with permits, we are ready with the very rich exploration portfolio should the oil price demonstrate a recovery in the very near future.

Okay.

Okay and I’ll just add and let me get back to that is, as I said earlier, in my view that there is a time for organic versus inorganic growth and exploration drilling is obviously how oil companies grow and we will get back to drilling exploration wells. But at the moment, that time is not now. So this low in oil price allows us to, frankly, improve on our exploration process in my view. Again, frankly, we’ve had, we had good exploration success for the last several years. So this is – we have an ongoing process here to reevaluate our entire portfolio. I think it’s very fulsome and rich but we’re going to go through the whole thing again. And again, the strategy now is not to drill these things 100% swing for the fences each time it’s to lower our risk profile, lower our capital exposure to these and try to - with the idea of growing the company over the long-term. In the mean time, we’re looking for barrels that are already exist.

Okay, I mean thank you for that brief response. I just look at the – I go back to September of last year and you had about four well planned in Colombia, December it’s still four wells, I could go back to early last year to see as many as five. So I’m just – I guess I’m putting it back to you, pre the change in strategy, per the collapse in oil price, this wasn’t a particularly broad exploration program on your own acreage. So I guess I’m just coming back to the maturity of the prospects.

David, I think you are confusing sort of what grant here as prospect inventory is five of the targets that we have. I mean, we’re not drilling in the Llanos which are multiple small targets, you know, these are foothills wells, they are big, they are complicated, complex geology, above ground issues and so on and so forth. And you’re absolutely right, we didn’t drill up the remaining wells. That’s not to say we don’t have a good inventory but as you know and everyone knows on the call the permitting process in Colombia is onerous and when you combine with above ground issues, it takes some time. I’m not defending it by any means. I think there is, part of the shift in strategy is allowing us to drill more wells with less of a risk profile.

Yeah. Okay, well thank you any way.

Your next question comes as a follow-up from the line Jamie Somerville representing TD Securities. Please proceed.

I’m just wondering, if you’d be willing very quickly to comment on how you see the Llanos space efficiently within the new strategy, it’s the largest producing basin in Colombia and you do have a small position there?

If I were to answer that one, my take would be that the Llanos is a very large basin and all Llanos is not graded equal and there is some parts of the basin that have relatively high IPs but very steep declines and so what we, in my view, what we don’t want to do is get on I think we’ve all heard as called the Llanos treadmill which is chasing small reserves with high IP’s and high declines. Now there are some parts of Llanos basins that are very high quality with a different production profile and larger reserve basins and so Jamie the short answer is yes we’re looking all the basins in there and we understand that we’re Putumayo centric and we’re essentially operating in a very difficult environment which we have successfully for years. But part of this reducing a risk profile is looking elsewhere within the country including Llanos.

Thank you.

Gentlemen, this concludes the question-and-answer session. Please conclude to closing remarks.